Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› respol-writing-style
respol-writing-style
GitHub针对Research Policy期刊的写作风格优化技能。旨在解决跨学科（经济学、管理学、政策）读者理解障碍，通过精简引言、明确贡献、翻译行话及规范结构，提升论文的可读性与论证清晰度，确保专业且易懂。
Trigger Scenarios
引言冗长导致核心贡献滞后
文风偏向单一学科导致其他领域读者难以理解
摘要仅罗列主题而未陈述具体发现
混用未解释的专业术语
审稿人反馈文章逻辑混乱或论点不明
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill respol-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "respol-writing-style",
"description": "Use when prose and structure are the bottleneck for a Research Policy (RP) manuscript — making an interdisciplinary innovation-studies argument land for economists, management scholars, and policymakers at once. Polishes the writing; it does not change the contribution (respol-contribution-framing) or run the submission preflight (respol-submission)."
}
Writing Style (respol-writing-style)
When to trigger
- The intro takes pages to reach the point; the contribution is hidden on page 4
- The prose is written for one discipline and opaque to the others RP serves
- The abstract lists topics ("this paper examines…") instead of stating findings
- Jargon from one tradition (econometrics, or STS, or strategy) is used without translation
- A referee says the paper is "hard to follow," "the argument doesn't flow," or "what is the point?"
The Research Policy voice
RP prose must work for an interdisciplinary innovation-studies readership — an economist, a management scholar, and an STI policymaker should each be able to follow the argument. That means leading with the puzzle and the contribution, naming the innovation mechanism in plain terms before formalizing it, and translating any field-specific jargon. The house argument shape links mechanisms, institutions, and technology evidence into a claim about how innovation works or should be governed; writing that stops at "the coefficient is significant" reads as the wrong journal regardless of polish.
RP is not a place for either pure mathematical opacity or pure narrative hand-waving — the writing should be analytically precise and accessible across disciplines.
Structuring the argument
Introduction (the highest-leverage section — write it last)
- Open with the innovation puzzle or policy tension, not a literature throat-clear.
- By the end of the first 1–2 pages, state the question, the approach, the headline finding, and the contribution.
- Signpost the contribution explicitly ("This paper contributes to [innovation-studies conversation] by showing…").
- Name the policy/managerial stakes early so policymaking readers stay engaged.
Abstract (verify the limit on the guide for authors; ~150–250 words typical for Elsevier journals, 待核实)
- State the question, data/method, the actual finding (with direction), and the implication. Avoid "this paper examines" with no result.
Body
- Theory before results; mechanism before estimate; let each section do one job.
- Translate jargon: define an indicator or a tradition-specific term the first time it appears.
- Keep the innovation-system / policy thread visible from intro to conclusion.
Conclusion
- Restate the contribution, give the earned policy/managerial implication with its scope conditions, and state limitations honestly.
Line-level craft
- Prefer active voice and concrete subjects; cut hedging stacks ("it may possibly suggest").
- One idea per paragraph, with a topic sentence carrying the argument.
- Quantify in the text where it helps a reader judge magnitude (effect size, share), not just significance.
- Use British or American spelling consistently per the Elsevier guide (待核实) and follow the journal's reference style.
Checklist
- The contribution is visible within the first 1–2 pages of the intro
- The abstract states an actual finding with direction, not just a topic
- Jargon from any one tradition is translated for the others
- The innovation-mechanism / policy thread runs from intro to conclusion
- Theory precedes results; each section does one job
- The conclusion gives an earned, scope-bounded implication
- Word/abstract limits and reference style follow the guide (verified or 待核实)
Anti-patterns
- A "funnel" intro that buries the contribution after a long literature recap
- An abstract that announces topics but reports no finding
- Single-discipline opacity in an interdisciplinary journal
- Stopping the prose at statistical significance with no magnitude or mechanism
- Hedging every sentence until the claim disappears
- Inconsistent spelling/reference style that signals a careless submission
Output format
【Journal】Research Policy
【Skill】respol-writing-style
【Intro】contribution visible in 1–2 pages? [Y/N]
【Abstract】states a finding with direction + implication? [Y/N]
【Cross-discipline】jargon translated for econ/management/policy readers? [Y/N]
【Thread】mechanism→institution→evidence visible throughout? [Y/N]
【Conclusion】earned, scope-bounded policy/managerial implication? [Y/N]
【Format】word/abstract limit + reference style checked (or 待核实)
【Next skill】respol-submission
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:19
